ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Route 113 (Storey Avenue) at Woodman Way
and Low Street
Newburyport, MA
May 27, 2015
Prepared For:
MassDOT
Prepared By:
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
600 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, MA 01801
Road Safety Audit
Route 113 (Route 113) at Woodman Way and Low Street, Newburyport, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Data ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Location and Description .............................................................................................. 4
Road SafetyAudit: Observations and Potential Safety Enhancements ................................. 5
Summary of Road Safety Audit ............................................................................................... 19
List of Appendices
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Audit Team Contact List
Detailed Crash Data
RSA Procedure
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Locus Map .............................................................................................................................. 3
Route 113 (Storey Avenue) at Woodman Way and Low Street..………..………………...…5
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Participating Audit Team Members ....................................................................................... 2
Potential Safety Enhancements Summary ............................................................................ 20
Background
The Federal Highway Administration defines a Road Safety Audit (RSA) as the formal safety
examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary
team. The purpose of an RSA is to identify potential safety issues and possible opportunities for
safety improvements considering all roadway users. MassDOT’s RSA procedures are defined in
Appendix D.
The four-way intersection of Route 113 (Storey Avenue), Woodman Way and Low Street in the
City of Newburyport operates under traffic signal control. Woodman Way and Low Street are
offset approximately 70 feet (ft). The intersection has been determined by the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to be on the top 5% high crash list for the Boston
Region MPO making a Road Safety Audit (RSA) a requirement prior to the 25% Design Phase.
Tropic Star Development (Developer) is also proposing to redevelop the existing Shell gas
station site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The Developer is looking to close
several existing driveways along Route 113 and construct a CVS pharmacy on the site.
The intersection is located east of the Route 95/Route 113 interchange. The Route 95 ramps
with Route 113 are signalized, as well as the Park and Ride driveway. East of the Woodman
Way and Low Street intersection, the intersections of Route 113 with Port Plaza and the Market
Basket shopping center are also under traffic signal control. The study intersection is shown in
Figure 1, Locus Map.
In response to the high incidence of crashes at this intersection, MassDOT requires that this RSA
be prepared to identify safety issues and enhancements that may be implemented in conjunction
with the redevelopment of the Shell gas station site or as improvements associated with future
public and private development projects.
Project Data
The RSA meeting was held on Thursday April 16, 2015 at the Mayor’s Conference Room at the
Newburyport City Hall located at 60 Pleasant Street in Newburyport. The audit team members
and their affiliations that participated in the RSA meeting for the intersection of Route 113 at
Woodman Way and Low Street are listed in Table 1.
Page 1
Table 1. Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team Member
Agency/Affiliation
William Ullom
MassDOT Safety
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassDOT Safety
John Mastera
MassDOT Safety
Jeff Gomes
MassDOT District 4 Traffic
Jim Terlizzi
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Andrew Port
Newburyport Planning Department, City Planner
Jim McCarthy
Newburyport Planning Board
Jon-Eric White
Newburyport Engineering Department, City Engineer
Wayne Amaral
Newburyport Public Services, Deputy Director
Mark Murray
Newburyport Police Department, Marshal
Christopher LaClaire
Newburyport Fire Department, Fire Chief
Scott Mitchell
Tropic Star Development, Developer
Susan Hirl
VAI
Scott Thornton
VAI
Steve Boudreau
VAI
Jake Carmody
VAI
Ken Cram
Bayside Engineering
The project locus is shown in Figure 1.
Page 2
Figure 1
Locus Map
Project Locus
The RSA meeting agenda is provided in Appendix A and the audit team contact information is
provided in Appendix B.
Prior to the actual RSA meeting on April 16, 2015, the audit team was provided with a collisions
diagram and crash data at the intersection of Route 113 at Woodman Way and Low Street
(contained in Appendix C). Before attending the RSA, the participants were encouraged to
conduct their own site review of the intersection to become familiar with the safety issues to be
discussed.
Page 3
The intersection collisions diagram was reconstructed from a review of crash records provided to
VAI by the Newburyport Police Department. The records cover the period from 2008 through
December 2014 during which time a total of 45 crashes were reported at the intersection. The
great majority of accidents were of two types: approximately 45% (20 of 45) were the rear-end
type accident and approximately 25% (11 of 50) were the angle type accident, representing 70%
(31 of 45) of all accidents. There were no fatalities and one fifth (9 of 45) of the accidents
involved personal injury. In general, many of the accidents occurred during daylight hours (77%)
under clear weather and dry road surface conditions. This information was reviewed by the team
at the meeting in conjunction with aerial photography and street level views afforded by Google
Earth.
Project Location and Description
Route 113 at Woodman Way and Low Street
Woodman Way and Low Street intersect Route 113 from the north and south, respectively, to
form this five-legged, off-set intersection under traffic signal control. The Route 113 eastbound
approach consists of a 10-foot wide left-turn lane, two 11-foot wide through travel lanes and an
11-foot wide right-turn lane with a 1-foot wide marked shoulder. The Route 113 westbound
approach consists of a 10-foot wide left-turn lane and two 12-foot wide general-purpose travel
lanes with a 1-foot wide marked shoulder. The directions of travel along Route 113 are
separated by a double-yellow centerline. The posted speed limit on Route 113 is 35 miles per
hour (mph). The Woodman Way southbound approach consists of a 10-foot wide leftturn/through travel lane and an 11-foot wide right-turn lane with a 1-foot wide marked
shoulder. The directions of travel along Woodman Way are separated by a double-yellow
centerline. The Low Street northbound approach consists of a 12-foot wide left-turn lane and a
12-foot wide left/right-turn lane with a 1-foot wide marked shoulder. Low Street approaches
from the south and the grade is approximately 4 percent. The directions of travel along Low
Street are separated by a double-yellow centerline. The fifth leg is the exit only driveway from
the Shell gas station in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The approach is
approximately 22-feet wide and permits exiting movements only.
Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Route 113 and along the east side of Low Street and
Woodman Way. Illumination of Route 113 is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood
poles. Land use in the vicinity of the intersection consists of a Dunkin Donuts, a bank, a 7-11
convenience store and the Shell gas station. The traffic signal operates in a coordinated,
four-phase, fully-actuated mode, and is interconnected and coordinated with the traffic control
signals along the Route 113 corridor between Daniel Lucy Way and the driveway to the Market
Basket Plaza. Signal phases are provided for the Route 113 left-turn movements; Route 113
through movements; Low Street movements/Route 113 eastbound right-turn movement; and
Woodman Way/Shell gas station drive movement. Pedestrian traffic signal equipment and
concurrent (with the non-conflicting vehicle phase) pedestrian phasing are provided as part of the
traffic signal system.
Page 4
Figure 2 Route 113 (Route 113) at Woodman Way and Low Street
Road Safety Audit:
Observations and Potential Safety Enhancements
After the audit team participated in the RSA site visit on April 16, 2015, the audit team members
returned to the meeting room at the Newburyport Mayor’s Conference Room and a group
discussion was held on the various safety issues that were observed to have an impact on the
intersection safety. The safety issues that were observed and discussed include:
1. Left-turns out of Dunkin Donuts exit driveway.
2. Confusion of vehicles exiting Woodman Way and Low Street.
3. Red light running.
4. Eastbound Route 113 right-turns accelerating to Low Street southbound.
5. Pedestrian crossing across west leg of intersection.
6. One fatality approximately eight years ago.
7. Queuing on Low Street.
8. Driveways at intersection/courtesy crashes.
9. Eastbound Route 113 lane usage.
10. Vehicle detection issues.
11. Access into Dunkin Donuts driveway from the east.
12. Pre-emption for emergency response vehicles on Low Street.
Page 5
13. Lack of Bicycle accommodations.
14. Roadway curvature east of the intersection travelling westbound (alignment).
15. Excessive speeds.
16. Visual distractions/blockages.
17. Trucks through intersection to industrial area.
18. Pedestrian/Vehicle conflicts.
19. Pedestrian ramps.
20. Sign placement.
21. Pavement condition.
Each of the safety issues listed above is described in more detail in the following paragraphs
along with the potential enhancements discussed during the RSA.
Observed Safety Issue # 1- Left-turns out of Dunkin Donuts Driveway:
The Route 113 at Woodman
Way and Low Street intersection
is abutted by commercial
activity on all four corners with
a number of driveways within
close
proximity
to
the
intersection.
The Dunkin
Donuts restaurant in the
northwest corner has an entrance
driveway and a separate exit
only driveway on Route 113 and
a full access driveway on
Woodman Way. In addition, the
Shell gas station in the
southwest corner has two wide
driveways on Route 113 and a
Dunkin Donuts Exit to Route 113
driveway on Low Street. The
easternmost Shell station driveway is the fifth leg into the intersection and under traffic signal
control. A 7-11 convenience store is in the southeast corner and has a driveway on Route 113
and a driveway on Low Street. Located in the northeast corner of the intersection is a bank with
an entrance only driveway on Route 113 and a driveway on Woodman Way.
The Dunkin Donuts exit driveway to Route 113 was designed to permit right-turns out only.
Town officials familiar with the location have stated that drivers do not obey the intended rightturn only use. The collisions diagram illustrates two rear-end accidents involving vehicles
travelling westbound on Route 113. Left-turns out of this driveway creates an issue because
exiting vehicles need to cross two lanes of traffic while at the same time causing westbound
Route 113 vehicles to slow down or stop, and in some cases causing rear-end crashes on Route
113. “Courtesy crashes” are further discussed under Observed Safety Issue # 8.
Page 6
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Review and evaluate possibility of enforcing driveway operation. In particular, check the
original Site Plan approval plans for approved signage and/or pavement markings.
2. Install signage at the Dunkin Donuts exit only driveways so that drivers are encouraged to
obey intended usage of right-turn out only.
3. Enforce the intended “in” and “out” use of the designated driveways.
Observed Safety Issue # 2 – Confusion of vehicles exiting Woodman Way and
Low Street:
The south leg of Low Street and
the north leg of Woodman Way
are offset and do not align
directly opposite each other.
The Low Street approach
consists of an exclusive leftturn lane and a shared leftturn/right-turn lane.
The
tracking lines for the double-left
turns from Low Street to Route
113 westbound are faded and
are located such that vehicles in
the right hand left-turn lane
tend to make wide, swinging
left-turn maneuvers. With the
relatively long travel path for
Low Street to Route 113 Westbound
these left-turning vehicles,
vehicles tend to cross travel lanes while executing the left-turn. This leads to some driver
confusion as to ‘where to be’ while executing a left-turn form Low Street. The collisions
diagram shows five angle type crashes of westbound vehicles crossing all lanes of traffic and one
crossing crashes of the Low Street Left-turning westbound vehicles.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Update signage and replace pavement markings and tracking lines. Check to make sure
tracking lines are placed correctly.
2. Upgrade intersection traffic signal control and vehicle detection that will allow the
intersection to operate more efficiently.
Page 7
Observed Safety Issue # 3 – Red Light Running:
Travelling along Route 113
eastbound and westbound, it is
difficult
to
discern
the
Woodman Way and Low Street
intersection
approaches.
Drivers unfamiliar with the
intersection may not know that
the intersection is as long as it
is, particularly for Route 113.
Mast arms are currently
installed close to the STOP line,
making the intersection appear
smaller.
Three (3) of the
crashes resulted from vehicles
running the red light. In all
three crashes, a vehicle
Route 113 Looking West
travelling westbound on Route
113 was involved. As a result
of the long distance to cross the intersection on Route 113, there is a lengthy clearance interval of
six (6) seconds. Also, when following large trucks, it is difficult to see signal heads. Red lightrunning was also mentioned at the RSA meeting for vehicles exiting Low Street, but the crash
data does not indicate if any collisions were specifically related to this approach.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Realign the side street approaches to align opposite one another as this would shorten the
distance a vehicle needs to traverse the intersection.
2. Evaluate relocating mast arms with signal heads at the far side of the intersection.
3. Upgrade traffic signal control and provide additional side mounted signal heads on posts for
increased visibility.
4. Re-evaluate clearance intervals and retime signal, if necessary.
5. Improve enforcement.
Page 8
Observed Safety Issue # 4 – Eastbound Route 113 Right-turns Accelerating to Low
Street Southbound:
Travelling along Route 113
eastbound to Low Street
southbound, there is an exclusive
right-turn lane. This right-turn
lane crosses the exit only
driveway from the Shell gas
station, and then has a large
radius
for
the
right-turn
maneuver onto Low Street.
Vehicles tend to accelerate
through this lane onto Low
Street. The collisions diagram
shows one crash at the Shell gas
station exit, four rear-end
crashes southbound on Low
Street and one southbound
Right Turn Radius on Route 113 Eastbound
sideswipe crash. Based on the
crash data, Driver Inattention was listed as the primary cause of five of the six crashes.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Relocate the STOP bar for the right-turn lane closer to Low Street (staggered from through
lanes on Route 113 eastbound).
2. Consider closing the Shell gas station driveway.
3. Consider eliminating the right-turn overlap phase.
Observed Safety Issue # 5
– Pedestrian Crossing
Across West Leg of
Intersection:
Crosswalks exist across the
Woodman Way, Low Street and
Route 113 eastern leg of the
intersection.
There is no
crosswalk across the Route 113
western leg of the intersection.
Across from the Shell gas
station is the Dunkin Donuts.
Pedestrians have been reported
crossing to get to the Dunkin
Donuts in front of the Shell gas
Looking north to Woodman Way
Page 9
station without crossing Low Street, then Route 113 and then Woodman Way to avoid walking
the extra distance.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Consider adding a crosswalk across the Route 113 eastbound approach with pedestrian
actuation.
Observed Safety Issue # 6 – One Fatality Approximately Eight Years Ago:
The Newburyport Police Department indicated at the RSA that approximately eight years ago
there was a fatality involved crash at this intersection. No details were available at this time. It
is recommended that this particular crash be researched, and if necessary, incorporate appropriate
design into any intersection reconstruction.
Observed Safety Issue # 7 – Queuing on Low Street:
Observations and anecdotal
evidence indicate that there are
oftentimes long queues on the
Low Street approach to the
intersection, particularly during
the evening peak hour. It was
stated that this may be a 3:00
PM issue associated with
industrial park traffic getting out
for the day. However, Route
113 traffic is noted to typically
experience very little queueing.
Low Street Approaching Route 113
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Consider additional vehicle detection (queue detectors) on Low Street to allow additional
time for the Low Street approach.
2. Consider widening the Low Street approach to include a separate right-turn lane. This will
increase capacity on the Low Street approach.
3. Review signal timing and phasing to improve intersection operations.
Page 10
4. Inform trucking companies within the industrial park of alternate truck routes in order to
avoid the Low Street intersection.
Observed Safety Issue # 8 – Driveways at Intersections/Courtesy Crashes:
Audit team members discussed
and noted on the intersection
Crash Data Summary Table that
the
driveways
near
the
intersection experience a high
number of “courtesy” crashes at
driveways along Route 113 and
along Low Street (particularly
Dunkin Donuts and the
Institution for Savings bank).
That is, crashes resulting when
a driver (who is not involved in
the crash) stops to allow
another driver to enter the
roadway who then hits or is hit
by a third vehicle who did not
Shell Station Driveway to Low Street
see the on-coming vehicle.
These types of crashes appear to
be common due to the intersection congestion, the offset alignment of the intersection requiring
split phasing and typically longer queues, and turning maneuvers into or out of the many
driveways near the intersection along an undivided multi-lane roadway. A similar condition
could exist under the build scenario for the proposed Shell gas station redevelopment.
It was also discussed that measures to eliminate left-turns be considered. This would include
providing a median along Route 113. A median would restrict access to developments along
Route 113 to right turn in/out only but would prove problematic to the businesses located on
Route 113 through potential loss of business. Additionally, provisions would need to be made to
safely accommodate U-turn maneuvers.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Close driveways at the intersection. This would eliminate the courtesy crash at the
intersection, but would require the City or MassDOT to take the properties in question.
2. Installation of a median along Route 113 to prohibit left-turns. Prohibition of left-turns
would reduce the number of vehicle conflicts.
3. Installation of NO LEFT SIGNS and modifying driveway configurations to prohibit leftturns.
Page 11
Observed Safety Issue # 9 – Eastbound Route 113 Right-Turn Lane Usage:
Audit team members noted on the
day of the RSA that vehicles
were observed using the Route
113 eastbound right-turn lane to
travel through the intersection
and not onto Low Street.
Currently, there is no lane
designation signage directing
drivers to which lanes are for
exclusive or through use. Audit
team members also commented
about the cut-through traffic
through the Shell gas station.
Route 113 Eastbound Approaching Low Street
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Review existing signage and lane alignment approaching the intersection to make sure
vehicles travelling through or turning right onto Low Street are in the correct lane.
2. Add diagrammatic lane assignment signage.
3. Install dashed lines at the approach of the right-turn lane to align through vehicles on Route
113.
Observed Safety Issue # 10 – Vehicle Detection Issues:
It was observed by the audit team that vehicles turning left onto Woodman Way from Route 113
eastbound are sometimes not detected, and the protected left-turn phase is not called. This leads
to vehicles making left-turns when there is clearly a red indication, or, using the Dunkin Donuts
driveway to cut-through the Dunkin Donuts site to gain access to Woodman Way.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Check the video detection cameras and repair/replace as necessary.
Page 12
Observed Safety Issue # 11 – Access into Dunkin Donuts Driveway from the East:
It was observed that vehicles
entering the Dunkin Donuts
entrance
slow
down
significantly to negotiate the
right-turn
maneuver
into
Dunkin Donuts.
This slow
down
impacts
drivers
following, which if impatient,
may try to get to the left to bypass vehicles entering Dunkin
Donuts or cause rear-end
crashes.
Dunkin Donuts from the Southeast
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. It was suggested that the possibility of widening the departure leg of Route 113 (westbound)
to allow for a wider shoulder or “pull-out” for Dunkin Donuts entering traffic be considered.
Page 13
Observed Safety Issue # 12 – Pre-emption for emergency response vehicles on
Low Street:
Observations
from
Emergency
Response Personnel indicate that the
long queues on the Low Street
approach to the intersection are
problematic for emergency vehicles to
clear the intersection in response to an
emergency (there is a fire station to
the south which would use Low Street
to respond to an emergency).
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Consider additional pre-emption
emitter to the south on Low Street
to provide additional time to clear
the Low Street approach and
allow emergency vehicles to clear
the intersection.
Low Street Approaching Route 113
Observed Safety Issue # 13 – Lack of Bicycle Accommodations:
Observations
of
the
existing
intersection indicate that there are
currently no bicycle accommodations.
The City of Newburyport has
indicated that they would like to see
some bicycle accommodations as they
are actively trying to connect existing
bicycle routes through the City, as
well as to coordinate/connect with the
new bicycle trail incorporated into the
Whittier Bridge project.
Two crashes involved bicycles. The
first was a bicyclist exiting Dunkin
Donuts into the path of a car turning
left from Low Street. The second
Route 113 Eastbound
involved a bicyclist heading south on
Woodman Way and the vehicle was
also on Woodman Way heading south and turned right and hit the bicyclist.
Page 14
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Consider adding bicycle lanes and associated detection into any intersection redesign/improvement.
2. Consider adding separated bicycle lanes and associated detection into any intersection redesign/improvement.
Observed Safety Issue # 14 – Roadway Curvature East of the Intersection
Travelling Westbound:
It was discussed by the audit
team that east of the
intersection, the Route 113
westbound travel lanes are
skewed slightly such that as you
travel around a bend in the
road, the alignment directs
vehicles in the inside travel lane
into the outside travel lane at
the intersection. This area was
not included in the collisions
analysis and therefore, any
collisions resulting from the
skewed alignment are not
shown in the collision diagram.
Route 113 East of Low Street
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Widen and realign this section of Route 113 such that the through lanes on Route 113
westbound align with the Route 113 westbound through lanes at the intersection.
2. It was suggested that advance warning signing or horizontal alignment warning signing be
installed to make drivers aware of the road conditions and the alignment more visible.
3. Install new pavement markings to replace existing pavement markings that have faded and
worn out over time.
Observed Safety Issue # 15 – Excessive Speeds:
Excessive speeds through the intersection were also discussed. Traffic calming was raised at the
RSA meeting as a means to reduce speeds. Traffic calming typically incorporates three major
design measures, such as narrowing the real or apparent width of the street, deflecting
Page 15
(introducing curvature to) the vehicle path, and/or altering the vertical profile of the vehicle path.
These measures are typically used to reduce speeds and increase driver attentiveness.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Consider narrowing travel lanes in any intersection re-design.
2. Construct the proposed building closer to the roadway (also a form of traffic calming).
Observed Safety Issue # 16 – Visual Distractions/Blockages:
It was discussed by the audit
team that east of the intersection,
the Route 113 westbound signal
heads can be blocked by large
vehicles.
Potential Safety
Enhancements:
1. Evaluate relocating mast
arms with signal heads at the
far side of the intersection.
2. Provide
additional
side
mounted signal heads on
posts for increased visibility.
Route 113 Westbound at Low Street
Observed Safety Issue # 17 – Trucks Through Intersection to Industrial Area:
The City requested assistance in obtaining signage to direct trucks to use the Scotland Road exit
on I-95 to access the industrial park area versus using the intersection of Route 113 to Low
Street.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Consider providing signage on I-95 directing trucks to the industrial park area.
Page 16
Observed Safety Issue # 18 – Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts:
While at the RSA site walk, several conflicts were observed with the concurrent pedestrian
phasing at the intersection. For instance, when the right-turn overlap on Route 113 is given for
eastbound right-turns, the concurrent pedestrian phase for the Low Street cross walk was also
indicated. Also, while a vehicle is in the outside shared left-turn/right-turn lane on Low Street,
attempting to make a right-turn suddenly stops (for a pedestrian), the vehicle behind which
desires to make a left-turn may rear-end the first vehicle.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Review pedestrian phasing and timing in the re-design.
2. Evaluate a right-turn only lane on the Low Street approach.
Observed Safety Issue # 19 – Pedestrian ramps:
While at the RSA site walk, the
pedestrian ramps were observed
to be in poor to fair condition
and had no detectable warning
panels.
Potential Safety
Enhancements:
1. Check all pedestrian ramps
at the intersection for ADA
compliance and upgrade as
necessary.
Review
pedestrian
phasing
and
timing in the re-design.
Existing Pedestrian Ramp on Route 113 Opposite Low Street
Page 17
Observed Safety Issue # 20 – Sign Placement:
While at the RSA site walk, it
was noted that some signs could
be placed in better locations for
motorists benefit. It was noted
that it was difficult to see the
street name signs as they were
mounted on telephone poles and
visibility was blocked due to
traffic signal poles. In addition,
R10-11 (No Turn on Red) signs
were mounted on mast poles
when mounting on mast arms
near the signal indication would
be clearer for motorists.
Potential Safety
Enhancements:
Woodman Way Street Name Sign on Telephone Pole
1. Review location of street
and regulatory signs and
move to locations where
they are more visible.
No Turn on Red Sign Mounted on Mast Arm Pole
Page 18
Observed Safety Issue # 21 – Pavement Condition
While at the RSA site walk, it was noted that in several area, the pavement was in poor
condition.
Cracking, rutting
and depressed structures were
visible within the intersection.
Potential Safety
Enhancements:
1. Review pavement as part of
any re-design/improvement
and
repair/replace
as
necessary.
Existing Manhole, Rutting and Cracking in Intersection
Summary of Road Safety Audit
The RSA team identified several safety issues and potential safety enhancements for the
intersection of Route 113 at Woodman Way and Low Street, based on the on-site field
observations, the meeting discussion and a review of the available data. The safety
improvements, as is typical, vary from low cost quick fixes to significant improvements with
higher costs and a long range time frame to implement. Table 2 lists each safety issue and
potential safety enhancement discussed during the audit. For each safety issue, the potential
safety enhancement is described; its potential safety payoff, the estimated time frame for
completion, the estimated construction cost, and the responsible agency are noted. Safety payoff
estimates, categorized as low, medium or high, are subjective and based on engineering
judgment and past experience. The time frame is categorized as short-term (<1 year), mid-term
(1 to 3 years), or long-term (>3 years). The costs are categorized as low (<$10,000), medium
($10,001 to $50,000), or high (>$50,001).
Page 19
Road Safety Audit
Route 113 (Route 113) at Woodman Way and Low Street, Newburyport, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2. Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Left-turns out of Dunkin
Donuts Driveway
Confusion of Vehicles
exiting Woodman Way and
Low Street
Red light running
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Review and evaluate possibility to
enforce driveway operation. In
particular, check the original Site
Plan approval plans for approved
signage and/or pavement
markings.
Low
Short-term
Low
Dunkin Donuts
Install signage at the exit only
driveway so that drivers are
encouraged to obey intended
usage of right-turn out only.
Low
Short-term
Low
Dunkin Donuts
Enforce the intended “in” and “out”
use of the designated driveways.
Low
Short-term
Low
Dunkin Donuts/Police
Update signage and replace
pavement markings.
Medium
Short-term
Low
MassDOT/Developer
Upgrade intersection traffic signal
control and vehicle detection.
Medium
Short-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Realign the side street approaches
to face each other.
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Evaluate placing mast arms at the
far side of the intersection
Medium
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Upgrade traffic signal control and
provide additional side mounted
signal heads
Medium
Long-term
High
MassDOT/Developer
Re-evaluate clearance intervals
and retime signal
Medium
Short-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Low
Short-term
Low
City of Newburyport
Enforcement
Page 20
Road Safety Audit
Route 113 (Route 113) at Woodman Way and Low Street, Newburyport, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2. Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Eastbound Route 113 rightturns accelerating to Low
Street southbound
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
High
Short-term
Medium
Developer
High
Short-term
Medium
Developer
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT/City of
Newburyport
Medium
Long-term
High
MassDOT
N/A
Short-term
N/A
Developer
Consider adding additional queue
detection
Medium
Short-term
Medium
Developer
Consider widening Low Street to
include an exclusive right-turn lane
to increase capacity
Medium
Short-term
Medium
Developer
Review signal timing and phasing
Medium
Short-term
Low
Developer
Low
Short-term
Low
City of Newburyport
Close driveways at intersections
Medium
Long-term
High
MassDOT/City of
Newburyport
Install a median on Route 113
Medium
Short-term
High
MassDOT/City of
Newburyport
Low
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT/City of
Newburyport
Relocate STOP bar
Consider closing Shell gas station
driveway into intersection
Consider eliminating the right-turn
overlap phase.
Pedestrian crossing across
west leg of intersection
Consider adding a crosswalk
across Route 113 eastbound
approach
One fatality approximately
eight years ago
Research crash and incorporate
into intersection redesign as
appropriate
Queuing on Low Street
Inform trucking companies of
alternate truck routes
Driveways at
intersections/Courtesy
crashes
Install additional signage
Page 21
Road Safety Audit
Route 113 (Route 113) at Woodman Way and Low Street, Newburyport, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2. Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Eastbound Route 113 rightturn lane usage
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Review existing signage
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer
Add diagrammatic lane
assignment signage
Medium
Short-term
Low
Developer
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer
Medium
Short-term
Low
MassDOT/Developer
Install dashed lane lines pavement
markings.
Vehicle detection issues
Check the video cameras and
repair/replace as necessary
Access into Dunkin Donuts
driveway from the east
Consider widening Route 113
westbound in front of Dunkin
Donuts to create a wider shoulder
or “pull out” lane
Low
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Pre-emption for emergency
response vehicles on Low
Street
Consider additional pre-emption
emitter to the south on Low Street
High
Short-term
Medium
Developer/City of
Newburyport
Consider adding bicycle
accommodations at the
intersection
High
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Consider adding separated bicycle
lane at the intersection
High
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Widen and realign Route 113
westbound
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Install advance warning signs
Medium
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Replace pavement markings as
appropriate
Medium
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Consider narrowing travel lanes in
any intersection redesign
Low
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT
Construct proposed building close
to the roadway
Low
Short-term
Medium
Developer
Lack of bicycle
accommodations
Roadway Curvature east of
intersection travelling
westbound
Excessive Speeds
Page 22
Road Safety Audit
Route 113 (Route 113) at Woodman Way and Low Street, Newburyport, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2. Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Evaluate relocating mast arms to
far side of the intersection
High
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Provide additional side mounted
signal heads
High
Short-term
Medium
MassDOT/Developer
Consider providing signage on I-95
Low
Short-term
Medium
Newburyport/
MassDOT
Review pedestrian phasing and
timing and include in redesign
High
Short-term
Low
Developer
Evaluate a right-turn only lane on
the Low Street approach
High
Long-Term
High
MassDOT/Developer
Pedestrian ramps ADA
compliant?
Check all pedestrian ramps for
compliance and upgrade as
necessary
Low
Short-term
Medium
Developer
Sign Placement
Review location and move for
improved visibility
Medium
Long-term
Low
MassDOT/City of
Newburyport
Pavement condition
Review pavement as part of
redesign and repair as necessary
Medium
Short-term
High
MassDOT/Developer
Visual Distractions/
Blockages
Trucks through intersection
to Industrial Area
Pedestrian/Vehicle conflicts
Page 23
Appendix A. RSA Meeting Agenda
Modified Road Safety Audit
Newburyport
MEETING LOCATION: Mayors Conference Room,
Newburyport City Hall 60 Pleasant Street,
Newburyport, MA
DATE: 4/16/15
TIME : 10:30 AM – 12:30 PM
Type of meeting:
Modified Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Session I 10:30 - 12:30
Route 113 at Low Street – Newburyport/District 4
•
•
Crash Summary and Diagram– provided in advance
Review aerial and on-the-ground images
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA meeting on 4/16/2015, participants are
encouraged to drive through the intersection and complete/consider
elements on the RSA Prompt List with a focus on safety.
•
All participants will be actively involved in the process throughout.
Participants are encouraged to come with thoughts and ideas, but are
reminded that the synergy that develops and respect for others’ opinions are
key elements to the success of the overall RSA process.
C:\Users\kcram\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ECYY00TD\RSA agenda_Rte113Low.docx
1
Safety Review Prompt List
The Safety Review Prompt List provides basic safety-related questions to use when evaluating a
given roadway location. The prompt list should be considered when evaluating a roadway to design
improvements or conduct a Road Safety Audit. The primary purpose of the prompt list is to identify
potential road safety hazards. The list is meant to be general and should be used to prompt an
evaluator as to specific matters identified in the field that may have an adverse effect on road safety.
The Safety Review Prompt List is not a check of compliance with design standards.
This Prompt List represents the minimum that should be considered when exploring safety
opportunities and is not intended to address all aspects of safety.
A summary of the responses should be prepared to highlight potential safety improvement
opportunities.
Speed
 Are posted speed limits consistent with speed regulations; are they adequate?
 Are design features consistent with the posted speed (passing opportunities, sight distance,
warning signs for horizontal and vertical curves, clearance intervals, sign placement, etc.)
 Are adequate controls in place for driver compliance with speed limits?
Multi-modal
 Have accommodations been provided for safe movement of pedestrians, bicycles,
emergency vehicles, public transportation, and commercial vehicles?
 What design features could be improved, added, or removed to enhance the safe mobility of the
various modes?
Pavement Markings
 Are there highly visible and retro reflective edge lines, center lines, and other pavement
markings?
 Do the pavement markings provide sufficient guidance to the road users? Can the placement
of the pavement markings be modified to improve guidance to road users?
Signs
 Are all signs retro reflective and visible for all roadway conditions, including placed free
from obstructions?
 Are signs located to maximize perception and reaction while minimizing intrusion in clear zones?
 Does the signage provide adequate guidance to road users for given road conditions?
C:\Users\kcram\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ECYY00TD\RSA agenda_Rte113Low.docx
2
 Are pavement markings and signs consistent in effectively guiding road users?
Intersection Control
 Do all signs (stop signs, lane assignments, street names, etc.) provide visible, clear,
non-conflicting messages?
 Is there clear, non-conflicting visibility of traffic control (signal heads, signs, and markings) from
all approach lanes?
 Has the potential of misrepresentation of intersection control been considered (at closely spaced
intersections or through control that is against expectation)?
 For signalized intersections, have the implications on safety been considered for the signal
phasing?
 Is there a safe means by which all modes can travel through the intersection?
Lighting
 Is lighting (from headlights and/or streetlights) adequate for specific roadway conditions and/or
use?
 If glare exists from sunlight or opposing headlights, are there countermeasures that can be
implemented to minimize potentially detrimental effects?
Obstructions
 Are there obstructions to sight lines or roadway guidance (signs, markings, etc.) that can be
removed, relocated, or minimized as part of this project?
 If obstructions or fixed objects exist but cannot be moved, can they be shielded (with guardrails,
etc.) or delineated (with reflectors) to improve road user safety? If so, what can be done?
Pavement
 Could the condition of the pavement impact mobility and safety (potholes, edge drop-offs, skid
resistance, etc)?
 What improvements can be made to minimize safety impacts?
Access Points and Traffic Generators
 Is the access control sufficient for the road’s function?
Are site access points located to maximize safety while still providing adequate access?
 Have impacts of site developments been adequately accommodated for safe mobility of all
road users?
C:\Users\kcram\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ECYY00TD\RSA agenda_Rte113Low.docx
3
Parking
 Is parking clearly delineated and in conformance with signs, markings, and regulations?
 Might parking obstruct mobility/safety of pedestrians and other roadway users?
Weather Conditions
 Have accommodations been made for impacts from adverse weather condition (storage of snow,
removal of ponding, adequate drainage, signage of low salt areas, maintenance program for
snow removal, and catch basin clearing, etc.)?
Auxiliary Lanes
 Could taper locations and/or alignments contribute to safety challenges?
 Could lack of climbing lanes or passing zones cause driver frustration?
 Do acceleration/deceleration lane lengths necessitate additional signage and/or markings?
Animals
 Do animal migrations impact safety?
 Can measures be taken to reduce animal-vehicle conflicts?
C:\Users\kcram\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ECYY00TD\RSA agenda_Rte113Low.docx
4
Appendix B. RSA Audit Team Contact List
Participating Audit Team Members
Date:
April 16, 2015
Location: Mayors Conference Room Newburyport City Hall,
60 Pleasant Street, Newburyport
Audit Team
Members
Agency/Affiliation
Email Address
Phone
Number
Ken Cram
Bayside Engineering
kcram@baysideengineering.com
7814-932-3201
William Ullom
MassDOT Safety
William.ullom@state.ma.us
857-368-9622
John Mastera
MassDOT Safety
John.mastera@state.ma.us
857-368-9684
Andrew Port
City of Newburyport
Aport@cityofnewburyport.com
978-465-4400
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassDOT Safety
Lisa.schletzbaum@state.ma.us
857-368-9634
Jim McCarthy
City of Newburyport
jimmacnbpt@comcast.net
978-417-9373
Mark Murray
Newburyport Police Dept. mmurray@newburyportpolice.com
978-423-2066
Jim Terlizzi
Merrimack Valley
Planning Commission
jterlizzi@mvpc.com
978-688-8197
Christopher LeClaire
Newburyport Fire Dept.
Cleclaire@cityofnewburyport.com
978-270-8003
Susan Hirl
VAI
shirl@rdva.com
978-474-8800
Scott Thornton
VAI
sthornton@rdva.com
978-474-8800
Steve Boudreau
VAI
sboudreau@rdva.com
978-474-8800
Scott Mitchell
Tropic Star Development
Scott@Tropicstardevelopment.com
603-926-7770
Jake Carmody
VAI
jcarmody@rdva.com
978-474-8800
Jon-Eric White
City of Newburyport
Jewhite@cityofnewburyport.com
978-417-1969
Wayne Amaral
City of Newburyport
Wamaral@cityofnewburyport.com
978-465-4464
Jeff Gomes
MassDOT District 4
Jeffrery.R.gomes@state.ma.us
781-641-8332
Appendix C. Detailed Crash Data
Route 113 (Storey Ave) at Low St/Woodman Way, Newburyport MA
Crashes by Month
20.00%
18.18%
18.00%
16.00%
13.64%13.64%
14.00%
12.00%
9.09%
10.00%
8.00%
6.82% 6.82%
6.00%
9.09%
6.82%
Total
6.82%
4.55%
4.00%
2.27%
2.27%
2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC (blank)
Crashes by Day of Week
30.00%
27.27%
25.00%
22.73%
20.00%
15.91%
13.64%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
9.09%
6.82%
4.55%
Total
0.00%
0.00%
Crashes by Time of Day
40.00%
34.09%
35.00%
30.00%
22.73%
25.00%
20.00%
15.91%
18.18%
Total
15.00%
10.00%
9.09%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10-2 AM
10-2 PM
2-6 PM
6-10 AM
6-10 PM
(blank)
S:\Jobs\6696\Crashes charts RSA Route 113Low Newburyport 6696.docx
Route 113 (Storey Ave) at Low St/Woodman Way, Newburyport MA
Crash Type
50.00%
45.45%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
25.00%
Total
20.00%
13.64%
15.00%
6.82%
10.00%
6.82%
2.27%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Angle
Fixed
Object
Ped-Bike
Rear-end Sideswipe
TM
(blank)
Crash Light Condition
90.00%
77.27%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
Total
20.45%
10.00%
2.27%
0.00%
Dusk
(blank)
0.00%
Dark - lighted
roadway
Crash Weather
90.00%
80.00%
Daylight
77.27%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Total
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
9.09%
10.00%
11.36%
2.27%
0.00%
Snow
(blank)
0.00%
Clear
Cloudy
Rain
S:\Jobs\6696\Crashes charts RSA Route 113Low Newburyport 6696.docx
Route 113 (Storey Ave) at Low St/Woodman Way, Newburyport MA
Crash Surface
90.00%
81.82%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Total
40.00%
30.00%
15.91%
20.00%
10.00%
2.27%
0.00%
0.00%
Dry
Snow
Wet
(blank)
S:\Jobs\6696\Crashes charts RSA Route 113Low Newburyport 6696.docx
Appendix D. RSA Procedure
RSA Procedure
The designer will obtain, review and summarize the most recent pertinent available
information, including: crash data, traffic volumes, and traffic speed data. Note that the
crash data summaries from MassDOT Statewide database are not adequate and that
the actual crash reports (including narratives and diagrams), from the police department
reporting the crash data, are critical to a successful audit. The actual crash reports
should be used to prepare collision diagrams and crash analyses. Details of the crash
analyses must be clear because they will be used as the “before” information when an
evaluation is performed on the effectiveness of the countermeasures. Other relevant
information regarding the location may include, but is not limited to: traffic volumes
(including pedestrians and bicycles if available), speed/citation data, available roadway
plans, traffic reports and/or signal timings and phasing information (if appropriate).
With input and assistance from the community and/or MassDOT District, the designer
will select the RSA team, date, time and location. The team should represent
engineering (local and MassDOT), planning, enforcement (local or state police,
depending upon jurisdiction), emergency response (fire, ambulance or police that
respond to crashes in the project area), MassDOT’s Safety Management Unit, Regional
Planning Agency, maintenance (local department of public works or MassDOT
maintenance depending upon jurisdiction). Additional members may include
representatives of: Town/City Planning Department, Public Officials, or others. The
date, time and location will also require input from the local community and MassDOT. It
is best for the meetings to take place in close proximity to the project location to save
time and be more efficient.
An email invitation should be sent to all RSA team participants and include an
attachment with the pertinent available information. (See attached for suggested text of
email invite and a copy of a sample agenda).
At the pre-audit meeting, the designer will provide handouts of all pertinent information.
It will be the responsibility of the designer to facilitate the audit, take notes and photos
and then prepare the report in a timely manner. The RSA participants will meet (preaudit meeting) to discuss the process and goals for the RSA. The designer will present
the existing traffic data and any known related planned projects to the participants in
order to provide an introduction to project. General comments, issues and concerns will
be solicited about the subject location. Following the pre-audit meeting, the team will
conduct a site visit (audit), during which specific issues and concerns will be pointed out
by the RSA team (and/or designer) and recorded by the designer. As a minimum, the
designer should use the safety review prompt list (see attached) as a reference to
ensure that a comprehensive list of safety issues is discussed at the audit site visit.
After the site visit, the RSA participants will meet (post-audit meeting) and the designer
will facilitate a group discussion, which would confirm that a complete list of safety
issues and potential countermeasures had been identified during the RSA and
countermeasures have been identified. The countermeasures may include short-term,
intermediate-term, and long-term improvements and the responsibility for the
improvements will be identified. It should be noted that recommendations should be
comprehensive and may include engineering, maintenance, enforcement, educational
and behavioral countermeasures. If plans are already underway, the plans will be
discussed and reviewed to determine whether or not the existing concerns and issues
have been adequately addressed.
A RSA Report, based on MassDOT’s report template (see attached), would be prepared
describing the deficiencies and countermeasures identified during the RSA.
Countermeasures which were not discussed during the RSA may be included, if they
are found to be appropriate. Potential countermeasures which do not conform to
MassDOT or FHWA standards would be noted as such in the report.
The RSA Report preparation will require the following submissions:
• A Draft Report (the designer will submit, via email, to the participants within 5
days of the audit),
• participants should reply with comments within 5 business days of receipt of
Draft report,
• a Final Draft Report (the designer will submit via email, to the
community/MassDOT for review, within 5 business days after comment period),
• approval to finalize by entity with jurisdiction (road owners) and
• a Final Report (within 5 days of receipt of comments) in both hard copy and
electronic format.
Post RSA Procedure
The designer should work with the roadway owner (community / MassDOT District) on
implementing the short-term low cost improvements/maintenance items that can be
done prior to the completion of the design process. These should be detailed in the
Functional Design Report (including specifically what was done and when the work was
completed). In addition, attempts should be made to incorporate all medium and long
term countermeasures into the design. Any recommendations that cannot be
incorporated into the design should clearly be explained in the Functional Design
Report.
MassDOT intends to perform evaluations on the effectiveness of countermeasures used
as a result of RSAs. The “before” analysis will be based on the detailed crash analyses
presented in the RSA. An “after” study may be performed by MassDOT or others once
three years’ worth of crash data have been obtained. This will enable the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts to develop state-specific crash reduction factors.